Is President Bush's stance on contraception in line with his Christian beliefs?

[Loren Booda]

Does President Bush back pharmacists and doctors who forbid filling and prescribing the Pill, being an improbable abortifacient?

 

[JohnDubYa]

Improbable abortifacient? Are you working with the Kerry campaign? :)

In all seriousness, I don't know, but I would guess that he is.

 

[Loren Booda]

JohnDubYa,

Anti-abortion is a contentious stand as it is, but the U.S. far right seems also to be fomenting an attack on all oral female contraceptives, a la the Pope. Is it lawful for pharmacists and physicians to specifically target birth control pills for exclusion to those patients who both legally and medically qualify for them? Haven't women been discriminated against enough by the refusal of states to dispense them, but allow Viagra, to Medicaid (welfare) patients?

Is Bush not only "Pro-Life" but also a believer of personhood at conception? I guess that's to make up for all those body-bagged back in Baghdad. "Onward Christian soldiers!" (as long as they're the working poor).

 

[JohnDubYa]

I would tend to think that pharmacists refuse to sell The Pill because they have a moral belief against contraception, not because they want to discriminate against women.

I don't think private individuals should ever (or rarely ever) be forced to engage in business practices they find morally repugnant. It is a free country, after all.

Now, if the pharmacist worked for the state or Federal government, then that is a different matter.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Is Bush not only "Pro-Life" but also a believer of personhood at conception? I guess that's to make up for all those body-bagged back in Baghdad. "Onward Christian soldiers!" (as long as they're the working poor

Of what possible value is your rant to this discussion?

 

[russ_watters]

I'm pretty sure Bush isn't Catholic.

 

[ray b]

I'm pretty sure Bush isn't Catholic.

true BUT he has the same sex hangups
he is a nut christian of the type who thinks sex is evil
abortion ,gays, it all fits the sex is evil idea

why couldn't we have a fertility cult religion
and least going thru the motions would be FUN
and no guilt

 

[JohnDubYa]

ray, I don't even think the most hard-core Christians consider sex evil. Now pre-marital sex, sure.

Do you have any quotes from Bush that back your statement that he considers sex evil?

 

[Loren Booda]

JohnDubYa,

I attempted to express my anger over the hypocrisy by those who claim to be pro-life for zygotes, yet callously send people to suffer their deaths in a contrived slaughter over materialism in Iraq. The reference to the Crusades denotes that we have been fighting basically the same bloodbath for millennia, to end in Armageddon (which our president may believe to be his legacy).

Bush is against furthering stem cell research, yet culls those in the prime of life for the war in Iraq. He spends more resources trying not to lose face there and forces our ideals of democracy upon their majority.

 

[JohnDubYa]

JohnDubYa, I attempted to express my anger over the hypocrisy by those who claim to be pro-life for zygotes, yet callously send people to suffer their deaths in a contrived slaughter over materialism in Iraq.

Your argument would be more reasonable if you laid off the emotionally-loaded language. Why not post a reasonable argument? For example, the idea that Bush sent soldiers to die is absurd. I am sure he must have had other reasons to send soliders to Iraq other than to simply die.

The reference to the Crusades denotes that we have been fighting basically the same bloodbath for millennia, to end in Armageddon (which our president may believe to be his legacy).

I fail to see how Bush is trying to win Iraq back for Christianity. Again, you use a very poor analogy.

Bush is against furthering stem cell research, yet culls those in the prime of life for the war in Iraq. He spends more resources trying not to lose face there and forces our ideals of democracy upon their majority.

I don't recall any zygotes murdering hundreds of thousands of Shi'ias and Kurds. I don't recall any zygotes snubbing their nose at UN resolutions. If there ever was a zygote that did such reprehensible actions, I am sure George W. would be in favor of killing it.

So do us all a favor and quit trying to compare the two situations. Abortion is unlike the War in Iraq.

 

[russ_watters]

Similarly, abortion and birth control are two separate issues. Just because Bush is religious does not make him anti-birth control. But why don't we just stop the conjecture: if you want to claim that he's anti-birth control, all you have to do is prove it.

 

[ray b]

ray, I don't even think the most hard-core Christians consider sex evil. Now pre-marital sex, sure.

Do you have any quotes from Bush that back your statement that he considers sex evil?

look up jerry foulwell, BuSh2's 'POPE" on sex
for some real sick quotes
actions speak better than words
check funding for family planing, sex ed, and failed just say no plan

pre-marital, and outside marital SEX is the point
even the nut christians think marital sex is needed
or they get no kids to brainwash into their cults

 

[kcballer21]

I would recommend going to the pbs website and looking up "The Jesus Factor." Some reasonable inferences can be drawn from it.

if you want to claim that he's anti-birth control, all you have to do is prove it.

Proving it would be the best thing, but come on, would it be absurd to assume that Bush is anti-birth control? This is probably old news to you guys but it is widely known that Bush is a born again evangelical. One of the main characteristics of an evangelical is that they believe the Bible is the ultimate authority, period. To an evangelical the Bible is INFALLIBLE! Now I believe that this belief represents a huge gaffe, and a serious deficiency in objective and logical thinking, but that is for another thread. The point is this: If you accept that Bush is an evangelical, the new question is what does the Bible have to say about birth control. Without being a theologian I can guess that somewhere within the good book it condemns it.
These two quotes come from catholic.com.

"Judah said to Onan, ‘Go into your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went into his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10).

Deuteronomy 23:1 condemns birth control by sterilization: "He whose testicles are crushed or whose male member is cut off shall not enter the assembly of the Lord."

The site mentions that the Bible has little information about birth control because it is so obviously wrong. So now I guess the question is do you think Bush is an evangelical?

 

[russ_watters]

I am not all that familiar with the evangelical sect, but if being anti-birth control is a component of their faith, it should be written down somewhere. The Catholic Church's position is quite well documented.

 

[kcballer21]

The purpose of my post was to provide indirect evidence that Bush is opposed to birth-control. The quotes I provided were taken from the Bible, the source just happened to be from a catholic site. I am saying that if Bush is an evangelical, as it has been reported, then he believes in the infallibility of the Bible. If he believes in the infallibility of the Bible then it is very, very likely that he opposes birth-control. This argument makes the assumption that W is by definition an evangelical. According to the documentary "The Jesus Factor" by PBS, most definitions of 'evangelical' include this belief in the Bible as the absolute authority. Of course people are people, in that we are never 100% consistent and doomed to hypocrisy. Then again, it is Bush who prides himself in his ability to stand unwaivering.

 

[russ_watters]

The bible is open to an extreme breadth of interpretation, so you can't use your own interpretations to find the beliefs of certain religions. This is especially true when it comes to interpreting passages with scientific implications.

 

[Loren Booda]

Loren Booda,

Bush is against furthering stem cell research, yet culls those in the prime of life for the war in Iraq. He spends more resources trying not to lose face there and forces our ideals of democracy upon their majority.

JohnDubYa,

I don't recall any zygotes murdering hundreds of thousands of Shi'ias and Kurds. I don't recall any zygotes snubbing their nose at UN resolutions. If there ever was a zygote that did such reprehensible actions, I am sure George W. would be in favor of killing it.

You overlook a thousand dead American servicemen, whose lives were less protected by questionable Bush policy than fertilized eggs.

 

[JohnDubYa]

You overlook a thousand dead American servicemen, whose lives were less protected by questionable Bush policy than fertilized eggs.

I think you are under the impression that an anti-abortionist can never send troops into battle. But evangelical Christians are not necessarily pacifists. Obviously they must think that the unavoidable deaths of US servicemen is understandable if the cause is sufficiently just. Bush is not a Quaker.

I don't understand why you are unable to come up with this argument on your own. Just think about it for a minute. Do you really think you have landed on some sort of profound dilemma here? The necessity of killing in war has been debated in religious circle for centuries. Even some of the most die-hard evangelical ministers accept the idea of casualties as long as they think lives will be saved in the long run. Naturally they wish for a peaceful solution. Whether or not a peaceful solution was available to take Saddam out of power and end the sanctions is the $64,000 question.

 

[Loren Booda]

Assume that birth control pills can rarely cause an "abortion" of a primitive blastula. What other myriad abortifacient substances should also be banned, as a result of extending the fundamentalist pro-life logic? How is unprofessional use of these more dangerous drugs justified by those forcing out most effective, safe and well used contraceptives? Back to the chemical coathanger.

The standard of efficacy and safety which the Pill established is rarely surpassed among all other pharmacopeia. If the repeal of Roe vs Wade is controversial, what would the denial of oral contraceptives bring? The fundamentalists are wringing their hands.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Assume that birth control pills can rarely cause an "abortion" of a primitive blastula. What other myriad abortifacient substances should also be banned, as a result of extending the fundamentalist pro-life logic? How is unprofessional use of these more dangerous drugs justified by those forcing out most effective, safe and well used contraceptives? Back to the chemical coathanger.

I dunno. I'm not a fundamentalist Christian. But I can guess as to what they MIGHT say:

1. Sin should be fought, even if the sinners choose a more dangerous form of sin in response, or

2. The issue isn't just about killing, but promiscuity --- a sin,

or both. But you're asking the wrong person.

Regardless of their reasoning, a pharmacist should be free to deny filling prescriptions for The Pill for moral reasons if he wishes. If a certain religion forbids the handling of products derived from swine, why should a pharmacist be forced to fill swine-related prescriptions? We certainly grant such latitude for non-Christian religions, why not Christianity?

I think that was the gist of your original thread.

The standard of efficacy and safety which the Pill established is rarely surpassed among all other pharmacopeia. If the repeal of Roe vs Wade is controversial, what would the denial of oral contraceptives bring? The fundamentalists are wringing their hands.

Well, okay. But I fail to see why the safety of The Pill would influence their opinion. To them, a safe sin is probably not much better than a dangerous sin. And I don't think that using extortion techniques ("If you oppose our use of safe contraceptives, we'll use dangerous ones!") is going to sway their opinions.

If this was your argument all along, why didn't you say so? Why mangle this issue with the Iraqi war?

 

[Loren Booda]

Thanks for your good faith attempt at balanced responses, JohnDubYa. I guess my main concern is the seeming hypocritically disparate "values" of our president. Which is preferred policy - a slim chance of preserving the existence of a zygote, or saving the life of our youth from a very questionable war in Iraq?

On these issues, it seems that Bush would rather support his deadly crusade for oil than hold a more reasonable view on contraception. I support peaceful energy conservation over a papal-like stance on the definition of life. The question remains: how does one consistantly respect life as the leader of the United States?

 

[JohnDubYa]

Thanks for your good faith attempt at balanced responses, JohnDubYa. I guess my main concern is the seeming hypocritically disparate "values" of our president. Which is preferred policy - a slim chance of preserving the existence of a zygote, or saving the life of our youth from a very questionable war in Iraq?

On these issues, it seems that Bush would rather support his deadly crusade for oil than hold a more reasonable view on contraception.

And this is the kind of misleading reasoning that I think makes it difficult to discuss this subject honestly. You are making it out that there was a few million barrels of oil sitting out in the desert, and Bush sent soldiers into Iraq to steal the barrels, knowing that over a thousand would die. You completely ignore Saddam's butchery, which had to weigh in on Bush' decision in some way. You also ignore the WMD issue, and the devestating effect of the UN sanctions.

I know may disagree, but Bush is not a evil or uncaring person. He isn't sending troops into battle just to get them killed. He isn't having troops killed because he wants oil. At some point, your cynicism becomes unreasonable.

Now, there is plenty of room to disagree with Bush' handling of the Iraq war. You can say he was misguided, or acted hastily, or whatever. But to suppose that Bush sent troops into Iraq because he is impervious to human suffering is simply wrong.

Remember when Bill Clinton was urged to send in ground troops into Serbia to end the ethnic cleansing as quickly as possible. Instead, he chose a long, drawn-out air campaign. Now, I disagreed with Clinton's strategy: I felt all along that he should have acted quicker to quelch the violence. But I don't think he chose his strategy because he was indifferent to human suffering. I just think that as President he was overly cautious Commander-in-Chief. (I am sure you disagree.)

So why assume the worst in Bush' motivations?

I support peaceful energy conservation over a papal-like stance on the definition of life. The question remains: how does one consistantly respect life as the leader of the United States?

Bush' religious beliefs are not mere "stances." This isn't "Tastes great! Less filling!"

 

[Loren Booda]

I think Bush less evil or uncaring than misled, especially by the evangelical ethic of world supremacy. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan, harboring a proven, direct menace to the United States. Give me some idea why he chose to attack Iraq rather than say North Korea, whose atomic weapons may soon be sold to terrorists. I back allied troops now in their struggle for a resolution to the Iraq conflict, but I criticize our president for his "caution to the wind" approach when not considering the voices of worldwide Islam.

Saddam's butchery? Send in an assassin. We did not enter Iraq to steal oil, nor so much to secure it, but to control it. Who better than an oil merchant to find a red herring opportunity like this one, paid also with Iraqi petroleum. 9/11 showed bin Laden much more of a threat than, and mostly unrelated to, our former ally, Saddam. I see the hundreds of billions spent on this current war in Iraq to be mostly squandered on munition companies and other engines of war, with very little benefiting the besieged ground trooper.

Aside: Do you think Bush would win over an electorate who actually knew of his basic philosophy denying any reproductive privacy a woman might have, and lived without the fear of an impending repeat attack threatened by his lieutenant?

 

[JohnDubYa]

I think Bush less evil or uncaring than misled, especially by the evangelical ethic of world supremacy.

Evangelical ethic of world supremacy? Many of my family members were Pentacostals -- about as Fundamentalist as they get --- and I have no idea what you are talking about. If you are referring to missionary work, then you are wrong on two accounts: (1) evangelicals do not advocate violence to spread the word of Jesus Christ, and (2) I see no evidence that Bush is even trying to convert Muslims to Christianity.

So exactly what are you referring to, or was this just a cool sounding phrase?

I supported the invasion of Afghanistan, harboring a proven, direct menace to the United States. Give me some idea why he chose to attack Iraq rather than say North Korea, whose atomic weapons may soon be sold to terrorists.

We have hashed this over many times in this forum. Suffice to say that North Korea is not Iraq. North Korea has China as a strong ally and is located in a more formidable location than Iraq. Furthermore, attacking North Korea would compromise Japan's position.

We attacked Grenada because of its Marxist revolution. We didn't attack the USSR. I wonder why?

I back allied troops now in their struggle for a resolution to the Iraq conflict, but I criticize our president for his "caution to the wind" approach when not considering the voices of worldwide Islam.

But that is another issue entirely. We were talking originally about Bush' supposed disregard for human life, and now you are questioning his wisdom.

Saddam's butchery? Send in an assassin.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Do you want to be that assassin? Do you know what the Iraqis would do to anyone that even tries to assassinate Saddam Hussein. (Hint: Shred-o-matic)

There were millions of armed Shi'ia in Iraq, and none of them were about to even try and kill Saddam Hussein. And so you are going to send in one guy?

And even if you kill Saddam, his youngest son (a butcher himself) takes over, with his deranged brother given even broader powers than before.

And if the assassin gets away, who gets blamed? The Shi'ia. Can you imagine the carnage that would be wrecked on the Shi'ia population if they are blamed for Saddam's death? Or even blamed for aiding the assassination?

Your solution to Saddam's butchery is simplistic and completely unworkable. So we are back to square one: What to do about Saddam and his habit of killing thousands of people on a regular basis.

And what do you do to end the sanctions that are killing even more people on a regular basis? What would be your plan?

[I am omitting your oil argument because none of it has been substantiated.]

Aside: Do you think Bush would win over an electorate who actually knew of his basic philosophy denying any reproductive privacy a woman might have, and lived without the fear of an impending repeat attack threatened by his lieutenant?

Have you established his philosophy yet? I thought that was in question.

 

[Loren Booda]

I think Bush less evil or uncaring than misled, especially by the evangelical ethic of world supremacy.

I listen to Christian counseling on the radio most every night, and their main objective is to convert unbelievers, reflected also in their commercials. I am fairly sure this is the main effort of most conservative Christians, to "save" nonbelievers through ensuring worldwide their belief that Christ is their Saviour, ultimately through Armageddon.

Your solution to Saddam's butchery is simplistic and completely unworkable. So we are back to square one: What to do about Saddam and his habit of killing thousands of people on a regular basis.

So we wage war on all those who commit genocide but do not have nuclear capability? The continent of black Africa is wide open, but we have made ineffective inroads to the millions killed there. Two major selfish reasons for attacking Iraq: oil and Israel. The former is our addiction through wasteful usage in, e. g., SUVs and huge houses, and the latter with a government who spies on us and have killed scores of our sailors. Perhaps we should question the motives involving billions of dollars annually wasted through these money sinks.

[I appreciate your reading this, which has probably been rehashed to death in these forums.]

Actually, I think Bush would be satisfied repealing Roe vs Wade in general by "compromising" on an initial extreme stance against zygote abortion.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I listen to Christian counseling on the radio most every night, and their main objective is to convert unbelievers, reflected also in their commercials. I am fairly sure this is the main effort of most conservative Christians, to "save" nonbelievers through ensuring worldwide their belief that Christ is their Saviour, ultimately through Armageddon.

It's called missionary work -- spreading the word of Jesus Christ. I would hardly call it global supremacy, since the term "dominance" does not fit this picture.

Again, you tend to decribe normal events in loaded language. If I hear a cool song on the radio, I tell my friends about it. I may even urge them to buy it. In no way am I trying to instill global supremacy in my musical tastes.

I said it before, and I will have to say it again: Bush is a Christian who probably believes in missionary work. But the Iraq War is not an example of a Christian mission. I see no evidence whatsoever that we went to war to convert Muslims to Christianity.

So we wage war on all those who commit genocide but do not have nuclear capability?

Loren, forget the nuclear capablility and discuss this in terms of Saddam's genocide. I asked you what we should have done to (1) end the regular slaughter of Iraqi civilians by Saddam's regime, and (2) end the sanctions that were killing tens of thousands of children?

I am not saying that the above two criteria were the most important in Bush' reasoning, but to ignore them completely and suggest that Bush' invasion was nothing more than a orgy of killing is unfair to him. He obviously thought he was saving hundreds of thousands of lives in the long run by ending the sanctions and Saddam's dictatorship, and he was almost certainly right. Under those conditions, do you see how a Christian could support such an invasion?

The continent of black Africa is wide open, but we have made ineffective inroads to the millions killed there. Two major selfish reasons for attacking Iraq: oil and Israel. The former is our addiction through wasteful usage in, e. g., SUVs and huge houses, and the latter with a government who spies on us and have killed scores of our sailors. Perhaps we should question the motives involving billions of dollars annually wasted through these money sinks.

Let me repeat: We did not invade Iraq to control oil supplies.

How much were we paying for oil four years ago? How much are we paying now?

 

[Loren Booda]

I will let rest our communication, as I hope others would join in. You have spoken well, if not in fact converting me to Republicanism or Christianity, at least I have come to respect them more. I had thought politics to be loaded with jingoism - maybe now I will calm my "rhetoric" toward more objective argument.

I believe that it was Billy Graham who said that 80% of those calling themselves Christian were not really saved (source: "Hope for the Heart" or Charles Stanley on Christian radio). George W. Bush, to paraphrase, couldn't remember when he "had made a mistake." I believe that he couldn't remember.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Maybe I should quit my day job. :)

 

[plover]

He obviously thought he was saving hundreds of thousands of lives in the long run by ending the sanctions and Saddam's dictatorship, and he was almost certainly right.

I find it hard to square the idea that this is 'obvious' with the reasoning the administration offered for the war beforehand. As presented by the White House, this factor seemed at the time to run far behind other rationales such as WMD. While there are people for whom the calculus you refer to was a chief reason for supporting the war (although some of those now see our presence in Iraq as a disaster and sharply regret their earlier support), I have no reason to believe that it was Bush's. (It goes without saying (right?) that this is not an argument in support of Bush being an indiscriminate killer.)

I also have yet to see anyone include in this calculus the human cost in Afghanistan of the truly pathetic support the U.S. provided for reconstruction there (after promising a 'Marshall plan'). We had already made Afghanistan our responsibility. Any policy that utilized resources that should have been allocated to meeting this commitment is at best criminal indifference.

And given how overstretched our troops are, providing the troop strength that is known to be necessary for securing a situation like Afghanistan, would effectively have prevented going to Iraq.

How many lives will be lost in Afghanistan in the long run due to our dereliction?

Let me repeat: We did not invade Iraq to control oil supplies.

How much were we paying for oil four years ago? How much are we paying now?

Terrible argument. In order for this to make sense, you would have to show that

1. if the post invasion period had not devolved into chaos, that the prices would be similar,
2. the current situation is hurting profits in the oil industry, and
3. Bremer's policies were not designed more for the benefit of foreign investment than the Iraqi people.

The first of these points being most critical.

I'm not saying anything here proves that the invasion was motivated by oil profits, just that the argument you give to oppose that assertion doesn't fly.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I find it hard to square the idea that this is 'obvious' with the reasoning the administration offered for the war beforehand.

Most of your post is off-topic. This isn't a political debate, but rather an ethical debate. We are discussing whether or not the lives lost during the invasion gels with Bush' Christian views. All I am saying is that, privately, Bush must have considered the lives that he would be saving in the long run, which would make invasion acceptable to him on a moral level.

 

[plover]

Most of your post is off-topic. This isn't a political debate, but rather an ethical debate. We are discussing whether or not the lives lost during the invasion gels with Bush' Christian views. All I am saying is that, privately, Bush must have considered the lives that he would be saving in the long run, which would make invasion acceptable to him on a moral level.

Ok, if considered solely in the context of squaring Bush's Christian values with possible outcomes for Iraq that might follow from invasion, there's no real problem. However, those outcomes do not happen in a vacuum. Morally, the attack upon Afghanistan incurred an obligation on the part of the U.S., an obligation Bush publicly promised to fulfil. I'm not sure why you would define these consideration as political rather than moral or ethical. (Was that what was intended by saying I'm off topic?)

As for the second section of my post, the concern is logical. It appears you are trying to back up the idea that the Iraq invasion is not about oil by with the implication in your questions that current oil prices indicate that the U.S. does not "have control of oil supplies". These ideas do not connect directly.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Morally, the attack upon Afghanistan incurred an obligation on the part of the U.S., an obligation Bush publicly promised to fulfil. I'm not sure why you would define these consideration as political rather than moral or ethical. (Was that what was intended by saying I'm off topic?)

Morally, Bush was under no obligation to inflict violence on Afghanistan according to Christian scripture, and was certainly under no moral obligation to invade Iraq. He did so only because he was able to square in his own mind that the loss of life would be justified.

As for the second section of my post, the concern is logical. It appears you are trying to back up the idea that the Iraq invasion is not about oil by with the implication in your questions that current oil prices indicate that the U.S. does not "have control of oil supplies". These ideas do not connect directly.

1. Prices have risen, which usually indicates less control of supply. If you truly control the supply, you control the prices. If I commit acts that guarantees that I can have all the potatoes I want, I am not going to pay as much for potatoes. Controlling supply is controlling prices, because we already could buy as much oil as we wanted; we simply didn't like the price tag.

2. High oil prices have hurt Bush politically.

So tell me again why Bush's invasion of Iraq was all about oil. From an oil standpoint, where has he benefitted?

 

[plover]

Morally, Bush was under no obligation to inflict violence on Afghanistan according to Christian scripture, and was certainly under no moral obligation to invade Iraq. He did so only because he was able to square in his own mind that the loss of life would be justified.

ok... I don't disagree, but how is this a response to the quote that preceded it?

I'll restate the first sentence from that quote in case the original form is unclear:

By attacking Afghanistan, the U.S. incurred a moral obligation to help that country with reconstruction, an obligation Bush publicly promised to fulfil.
​

1. Prices have risen, which usually indicates less control of supply. If you truly control the supply, you control the prices. If I commit acts that guarantees that I can have all the potatoes I want, I am not going to pay as much for potatoes. Controlling supply is controlling prices, because we already could buy as much oil as we wanted; we simply didn't like the price tag.

2. High oil prices have hurt Bush politically.

So tell me again why Bush's invasion of Iraq was all about oil. From an oil standpoint, where has he benefitted?

Your points above were, in fact, the argument I drew from your original post. Also, I never said that he has benefitted in those terms, I said the argument fails to prove that it wasn't part of his intentions. (And I also explicitly stated that is not a proof of the converse viewpoint.)

Your argument implies that the situation in Iraq is in accord with the administration's intentions. Considering, however, that on more or less every count other than removing Saddam from power, the excursion to Iraq has either failed abysmally or is in a state of uncertainty, it seems unlikely that the effect that the current state of Iraq has on oil prices was any part of those intentions. From a different direction, if Iraq were going swimmingly but oil prices were high anyway, it would still be necessary to show that things hadn't been set up for a longer term payoff for Bush and/or his associates.

I shouldn't have said, "These ideas do not connect directly"—it doesn't really convey the meaning I wanted. It's not that the argument itself isn't clear, it's more that the background necessary for the argument to work has not been established, and indeed I have trouble seeing that the information that would be required to accomplish this is even available.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Considering, however, that on more or less every count other than removing Saddam from power, the excursion to Iraq has either failed abysmally or is in a state of uncertainty...

Really? The last time I looked the sanctions that had killed thousands had actually been lifted.

Bush has given Iraq a golden opportunity. I can't blame Bush if too many in the population are too stupid to understand that blowing up your own infrastructure and killing your own people are bad things to do. And, to move back on topic, Bush' actions certainly were consistent with his Christian views.

 

[plover]

Really? The last time I looked the sanctions that had killed thousands had actually been lifted.

I can agree that this is a good thing. It's also a fairly direct result of removing Saddam from power. Whether that it means it was effectively "included" in my original statement or not doesn't seem worth arguing about.

Bush has given Iraq a golden opportunity. I can't blame Bush if too many in the population are too stupid to understand that blowing up your own infrastructure and killing your own people are bad things to do.

Hmm, this is right up there with "she was asking for it"...

And, to move back on topic, Bush' actions certainly were consistent with his Christian views.

I already agreed with this for Iraq considered as an isolated case. You still haven't addressed the idea considered in the context of Afghanistan.